Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Would you rather see Usyk-Parker or Usyk-Dubois II?
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by champion4ever View PostYou just posted Usyk’s hip line and belly button. Any referee could have easily ruled that a legal punch.
In addition, they wouldn’t have been wrong or have their decision overturned either. Once again that referee was both partial and biased.
He could have easily counted Usyk out if he wanted to but chose not to. A referee could have made a judgement call either way and not have been wrong.
The punch partially grazed the navel. Which made it a legal blow.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kafkod View Post
The ref wouldn't have counted Usyk out because Usyk would have gotten up if the ref had started counting over him. The ref called the low blow and told Usyk to take his time recovering.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kafkod View PostOut of the current options, the only one who beats Usyk is Father Time.
As an Usyk fan, had the pleasure of sitting 3rd row when he KO'd Tony Bellew, I'd much rather him consider retirement at this point.
You've beaten what most consider the man of the modern era in Fury twice. There's not much point racking up these wins that yes whilst are good wins, aren't doing much more for the legacy and the older he gets the more likely it is he'll lose to someone he had no business losing to.
Those Fury fights had to have took something out of him also. Who's to say he's the same guy for his next fight? He may well not be.kafkod likes this.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by champion4ever View Post
Anything punch that lands below the belt line is a foul or a low blow. Any punch that lands on the belt line and above is considered legal. Whether it’s on the belly button or not.
So ref has little time to make decision and when he said it was low im sure he then had to standby his decisionLast edited by hugh grant; 04-18-2025, 04:47 PM.champion4ever likes this.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by IronDanHamza View Post
Yeah, I do agree.
As an Usyk fan, had the pleasure of sitting 3rd row when he KO'd Tony Bellew, I'd much rather him consider retirement at this point.
You've beaten what most consider the man of the modern era in Fury twice. There's not much point racking up these wins that yes whilst are good wins, aren't doing much more for the legacy and the older he gets the more likely it is he'll lose to someone he had no business losing to.
Those Fury fights had to have took something out of him also. Who's to say he's the same guy for his next fight? He may well not be.
Usyk has had a lot of fights, if you include his amateur career, and he trains like a maniac by all accounts. It's amazing that he can still fight at elite level, in his late 30's, with that high energy, reflex dependent style he has. I would hate to see him lose to someone who couldn't live with him at his peak.
Comment
-
Originally posted by champion4ever View PostAgain, you have not answered the question. Why was Andre Ward able to get away with landing all of those low blows?
Why wasn’t he penalized, disqualified or why didn’t Kathy Duva file a formal protest for those fouls?
Perhaps, the rules have been amended but historically belt line punches were considered legal. It has always been protocol to land punches above the hips not the belly button.
The disconnect here is possibly that you think the belt line refers to the top of the shorts, and it doesn't. Because fighters wear their shorts in different spots, the beltline has always been defined by the line passing from the top of the hips through the navel. That's been the case since boxing rules were formalized, and is true of all modern boxing matches, as well as historically understood as well. You can see the belt line diagrammed as such in old boxing texts dating back before 1850. The beltline meant the imaginary line where you'd wear your belt to hold up your pants, not the top of wherever you wore your shorts, because boxers would usually wear shorts that were larger, especially after groin protection was mandated. But ignorant fans conflated the two, and that's led to much confusion over the years.
Another example of fans screwing up the terminology is from the old saw "to be the champ, you have to beat the champ". That actually means that the champ retains his belt in the event of a tie, so you have to actually win in order to become the new champ. You can win by a controversial split decision, you just have to win. But fans at some point started thinking that meant you had to win the fight clearly or you didn't deserve to win, which is, of course, hogwash. Many of the ATGs won belts as challengers on narrow split decisions. But that false narrative persists to this day, even espoused by the likes of the great Roy Jones Jr, and may have contributed some to judge favoritism of the A-side, although I think corruption and financial incentives had more to do with it.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by champion4ever View PostAgain, you have not answered the question. Why was Andre Ward able to get away with landing all of those low blows?
Why wasn’t he penalized, disqualified or why didn’t Kathy Duva file a formal protest for those fouls?
Perhaps, the rules have been amended but historically belt line punches were considered legal. It has always been protocol to land punches above the hips not the belly button.billeau2 likes this.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment